Letters to the Editor
Glenn Greenwald
Published Letters: 6
-
Rob Mac - Cabdriver
[Read the article: Responsibility for the last seven years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whether you agree or not with McArdle's endorsement of torture under those circumstances has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've written. The point is that she's been screaming all week that it's unfair to link her to the torture regime since she's an unequivocal opponent of torture -- even claiming that she believes it should never even be discussed -- when, in fact, that is clearly not the case.
Agree all you want with her 2003 views on torture. That has nothing to do with a word I've written.
-
chewily
[Read the article: Responsibility for the last seven years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've addressed these points so many times already.
While you did a good job refuting points 2 and 3 from Drezner's original comment you did not fully (or at all) approach his first criticism which is that your numbers were unfairly inflated to prove your point by giving the petty stories several more news cycles than those you think are more worthy. There are other unfair inflations in your measurements too (like comparing "Yoo and Fourth Amendment" to a search for "Clinton and Lewinsky" which is likely to pull numbers for three different stories.)
As was extremely obvious, I wasn't suggesting that the search comparisons were endowed with mathematical exactitude. Obviously, there are other imperfections with it - such as the fact that search terms sweep up stories that aren't really relevant.
The point was to show the rough focus of the media's coverage on the various issues. Nobody seems to dispute that the media paid far more attention to Obama's hair than to the suspension of the Fourth Amendment and torture regime. Anyone who ignores that to make petty little quibbling points is someone whose judgment I'm going to question.
Moreover, if you really think that the time-frame issue is such a great point, I'll wait a week and re-do the searches and see what the results are.
Finally, I don't believe -- for reasons I've stated repeatedly -- that Drezner was merely describing, but not defending, the media's behavior here. I don't think that's a reasonable read of what he wrote.
In your follow up to him, in order to prove that Drezner was a torture-loving goon you quoted his less-than-great apology for having supported the war at a time when a great deal of the country supported the war--a point completely unrelated to the original argument and even as a criticism of merit it proves nothing on his original claims or yours.
As I said, I think it's extremely odd behavior to ignore the media's distorted focus and write instead about quibbles with my search methods, which were never intended to be scientifically exact - just accurate enough to make the point.
The fact that Drezner himself supported the war and the administration which implemented these abuses is, to me, extremely relevant in asking why he would be so resistant to the idea that the media's refusal to report on those issues is severe and corrupt.
-
Rob Mac
[Read the article: Responsibility for the last seven years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, my point is that you've misconstrued and distorted McArdle's 5-year-old remarks on torture,
A point you made by claiming that I failed to highlight a paragraph that was one of the 2 or 3 paragraphs in what she wrote that I chose to quote in full.
and I think this whole discussion is a distraction from your point that people like McArdle are idiot enablers of the press corps misplaced focus on stories that don't matter. Nailing her as a liar about her position on torture is a stretch and it is neither here nor there w/r/t your original point.
She said that her position on torture has been that it should never be discussed and never be done. Is that an accurate description of what she wrote in 2003?
-
DLF
[Read the article: Responsibility for the last seven years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG then characterizes this statement as follows: “wr[iting] in support of ‘hidden law,’ ‘dark rooms,’ ‘whipping out the toolbox,’ and immunizing torturers from punishment.” Unless GG has another statement by McArdle to support that last point, he is quite wrong here.
McArdle: "And I think that our operatives are probably so tempted when they face down the evil men who seek out soft civilian targets to sow terror. I cannot entirely fault them for it. I'm not sure they should always be punished."
Torture is against the law. It's a crime. If the people who do it are, in her view, not to be faulted and (perhaps) not to be punished, what else is that besides immunizing them for illegal behavior?
One of the reasons my posts are so long is because I strongly prefer to quote people I'm criticizing -- usually at length -- so that everyone can see for themselves not only what they've said, but the context for it. I always, always, always link to their argument. Everyone can read for themselves what McArdle said. I think my understanding of it is accurate -- she's saying that torturers are sometimes justified and therefore quite possibly shouldn't even be punished -- but I put up the lengthy quote, as I usually do, to enable others to decide for themselves.
Finally, both Drezner and McArdle acknowledge they supported the invasion of Iraq. You identified that as a possible basis for where my argument could breakdown, but they acknowledge that it's accurate.
-
Notforsale
[Read the article: John Yoo: Spearhead or scapegoat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've noticed that many Americans have difficulty in distinguishing between their country and their government. I'd hoped that Glenn was smart enough to avoid that logical trap.
The government has repeatedly endorsed what John Yoo enabled. The country as a whole has not.
Who elected this government, twice - including once after much of these torture claims were known?
And who elected the Congress which enacted the Military Commissions Act?
Acting as though the government is somehow separate from the people is the only "logical trap" that I see here.